Question about abortion.

MasterBlaster is actually advocating birth control to prevent the occurence of abortions. What I'm not clear on is if his answer to avoiding a rape-induced abortion is for the woman to take birth control to eliminate that possibility.

It would be far easier to change a few words in a law allowing abortions in case of rape than mandate or strongly suggest birth control to any human female that is of child-bearing age.

This abortion issue in South Dakota is a christian funded ploy to have the Supreme Court re-examine Roe vs Wade (the governor even admits that the state bill he signed will never become law). The problem with this ploy is it comes at a large legal expense that neither the tax payers of South Dakota wish to pay for, nor should Planned Parenthood expend its coffers where that money would be better spent on contraceptives, birth control, and education.

In fact, you would think it would be an act of Treason for a State to knowlingly pass a law that flies in the face of Federal law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

MasterBlaster is actually advocating birth control to prevent the occurence of abortions. What I'm not clear on is if his answer to avoiding a rape-induced abortion is for the woman to take birth control to eliminate that possibility.

---

It is impossible to eliminate. I suggesting a method to reduce rape induced abortion. I am making an assumption that reducing the number of women capable of becoming pregnant will lower the number of rape induced pregnancies. I would also suggest castration of all convicted sex offenders to further reduce that number.

If I was a girl, I wouldn't take contraceptives (shot or pill). We're not anywhere near advanced enough to know the long term repricussions of these chemical agents we nonchalantly expose ourselves to. We're only dawning into the chemical age right now. If the past has proven anything, we should never trust ourselves.

We used to use tapeworms as a diet drug, salem witch trials, red meat, god only knows the damage our first microwaves were doing.

Think about the people 100 years from now learning about us in their history books/computers/pdas/telepathic IO neural implants. "Back in the turn of the millenium, kids were given one drug to solve every attention problem we know about today. They atually beleived that by adjusting only the dosage, it would be applicable to every child..." And then the 10 year olds will laugh at our ignorance.

Back on topic, I know of a few people who refuse to take contraceptives for that very reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

Did I say "mitigate the risk of rape and subsequent pregnancy"? No, I said to "mitigate the risk of pregnancy". Period, in any woman old enough to have a child and who does not want one.

. . .

BTW no one answered my question:
In the UK it is illegal for an underage girl to prevent pregnancy using medication but is legal for her to get an abortion?

---

(i) We were talking about abortions due entirely through rape, and without the womens consent - at that point in the debate (perhaps we have cross-wires?)

(ii) It is illegal for a child in the UK (<16 years old) to have access or to give access to contraception without parental consent. It is also a criminal offence to provide contraception to a child without parental consents. Oddly, it is not illegal for a child to seek, solicit, and have an abortion without parental consent - the logic is that two doctors need to concur in order for the treatment to occur; It's certainly not a shining example of consistent UK law.

So the question is, I guess, am I just about to take my daughter down to the doctors and insist she takes contraception at 12 years old (ish) I'd rather educate her so that she doesn't consider sex as an act of indifference.

So the last one is: should I nevertheless enforce contraception upon my daughter to mitigate the risk of a rape induced pregnancy. I can only say - from a gut feeling: I can't necesarily justify this - a resolute no. Absolutely no.

Got one more question. Does the aborted fetus/child go:
1) To Heaven
2) To Limbo
3) To Hell
? Is there a passage in the bible/koran/torah that answers this question?

Holy crap (no pun intended ;)), this is going to get alot nastier now. I'm out, I'm not about to debate religious views on this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

Got one more question. Does the aborted fetus/child go:
1) To Heaven
2) To Limbo
3) To Hell
? Is there a passage in the bible/koran/torah that answers this question?

---

Well, for the Christian analysis I posted earlier (last page) I suspect it depends on the translation. If a child is consider sentient and (from what I remember from many years ago) a child is consider pure - I would suspect heaven. I don't recall the concept of 'limbo' anywhere apart from in Catholic literature.

From a logical philosophical point of view I suspect the answer lies with determining when a bunch of cells becomes a human being.

As for the rest I don't know.

I guess yrwyddfa the difference between someone of your daughter's age and the scenario with husband/wife that you described earlier is that if there is not really a reasonable situation in which an 11 year old would be pregnant. You are going to know something is up and the question in THAT case is can you justify an abortion.

Sorry MasterBlaster but I strongly disagree with some of the positions you've taken on this one.

You posted earlier that rape and pregnancy are seperate issues and shouldn't be combined in law. That might be a nice ideal but since one can lead to the other I don't see how you can separate them.

I know you're saying your arguments only apply to consensual sex, but since non-consensual sex (ie rape) is, by it's nature, non-concenssual it's not something the woman can choose to abstain from - it's a situation she has no control over. Therefore, if we're debating whether abortion should be a legal under those circustances we MUST account for the possibility that it will happen.

You seem to be saying that all women who don't want to get pregnant should protect themselves against it, even if they don't partake in consensual sex. If they don't protect themselves against it and get raped, well that's just her fault for not protecting herself. I disagree, she should be free to choose what she does to her own body - to my mind that's probably the single most fundamental human right. Of course, if there were no rapists in the world it would be a moot point, but there are, so it isn't.

You posted that you don't walk out of your house in the morning and jump in front of a bus, but that's a bad analogy. In the case of rape, the bus mounted the curb, ploughed it's way across you're lawn, hit your front wall doing sixty and flattened you while you were quietly enjoying your eggs and bacon.

Someone posted earlier in the thread that every girl they'd ever known who'd had an abortion regretted it. I think you're probably right (I only know one girl who'se has had and she says she regretted it) but I think that's an argument for proper councelling rather than legislation to ban it. I'm broadly a pro-choicer in that I don't equate abortion with murder and I think a woman should be able to choose what to do with her own body. That said, I think the choice to have an abortion is almost universally the wrong one... but a woman should have the right to make that choice - in an ideal world she'd choose not to but I'm uncomfortable imposing that choice on her. I do think we should provide a much greater level of councelling and support to a women (both before and after the birth) so that a) she REALLY understands the decision she's making and b) the decision to have the child doesn't equate to choosing a life of few opportunities

By the way, I think it's all well and good to say 'If you don't want to get pregnant don't have unprotected sex' but I think that ignores the realities of life. Besides survival, the sexual urge is probably the single strongest one we have and I don't think it can be dismissed quite that easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

You posted earlier that rape and pregnancy are seperate issues and shouldn't be combined in law. That might be a nice ideal but since one can lead to the other I don't see how you can separate them.

---

I can eaisally seperate the issue. Is it his/her fault she/he got raped? absolutly not. Is it his/her fault that the she/he may have contracted HIV or a STD? Absolutly not. Is it his/her fault that he/she will be tramatuized for life. Again, absolutly not. Notice I used his/her. Being able to concieve a child is not a requirement to become a rape victim.

So, If I am raped by a woman, and she becomes pregnant. Should It be legal for me to force her to get an abortion because that child is a constant reminder to me of the crime?

No, that would be ridiculous. That is how I can seperate the two issues. One act is a crime, the other is a personal decision. Crimes should be argued in courts, personal issues should not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Zappa

And most of the evils of society can, in fact, be cured through information. We have a society that has been disinformed and based on the disinformation has made irrational choices. And that's what I mean by 'ignorance.' People, who ordinarily might be smart, are deprived of the data by which to make a rational decision, don't have the data to do it.

---

That is, of course, unless it relates to unwanted pregnancies. Then you don't need information, you need drugs ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

That is, of course, unless it relates to unwanted pregnancies. Then you don't need information, you need drugs ;)

---

:lol:

You don't need drugs, you need information. If that information supports the use of drugs then that should be the decision you make. I am not a doctor. I do not know the effects of birth control on young women. I'm just floating an alternative Idea out there. Either way, It is and hopefully will always be our personal decision to make, after consulting a physcian, of course. I find it odd that in the UK It is not your personal decision. One more example of the government regulating personal freedom instead of crime.

I'm pleased to see that you got the humour in my last post. :thumb: This thread was on the verge of degenerating, I thought . . .

:)

Like I said man, this is not a passionate issue for me. Just trying to come up with a better solution than the norm. I hear a train wreck coming

If a turkey rapes a bottle of birth control pills and the pharmacist has an abortion will the turkey

1: go to hell
B: go to heaven
3: Finally get its due recognition as the coolest bird ever
4: Go to limbo but eventually become the national bird?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

I can eaisally seperate the issue. Is it his/her fault she/he got raped? absolutly not. Is it his/her fault that the she/he may have contracted HIV or a STD? Absolutly not. Is it his/her fault that he/she will be tramatuized for life. Again, absolutly not. Notice I used his/her. Being able to concieve a child is not a requirement to become a rape victim.

So, If I am raped by a woman, and she becomes pregnant. Should It be legal for me to force her to get an abortion because that child is a constant reminder to me of the crime?

No, that would be ridiculous. That is how I can seperate the two issues. One act is a crime, the other is a personal decision. Crimes should be argued in courts, personal issues should not.

---

Technically a man cannot be raped by a woman. It is physically impossible.

Maybe if he is restrained somehow like being tied up

Although, there are ways that a women can impregnate herself without the man knowing. I won't go into details, but even a mind that's in the proximity of the gutter can figure this one out. :)

So in a sense, it does work either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

Maybe if he is restrained somehow like being tied up

---

Would you be excited if you were tied up with a knife to your throat? Hardly, I'd be too terrified to (trying to keep this clean due to the AUP) be "excited"

Well, you have a point there, but nothing's ever quite that black and white. For example, the man could have be drugged. Even if he did not put up a fight it can still be classes as rape depending on the circumnstances such as that.

There are a few more examples here
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=1006022100861

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Technically a man cannot be raped by a woman. It is physically impossible.

---

Bullsheit. Ever heard of dopeing someone? you do not have to be awake or consious to preform. Ever woke up pitching a tent? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

Bullsheit. Ever heard of dopeing someone? you do not have to be awake or consious to preform. Ever woke up pitching a tent? :)

---

Ever heard of a strap on?

:lol: :lol:

No never heard of that. Why don't you explain it to us?

A woman could slip the guy viagra, tie him up, and have her way.
And of course, a man can be raped by another man, especially in prisons with weight rooms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

And of course, a man can be raped by another man, especially in prisons with weight rooms.

---

what crime will that violation be under?

As NotLKH pointed out a man can be raped by another man but the law dictates that a man cannot be raped by a woman. So even if she did manage it there would never be a conviction. Besdies, she'd have to wait hours for the viagra to work

I was quite surprised by ValleysBoy's assertion that a woman couldn't rape a man but it seems he's right, in Scotland at least. I found a definition on this link which says (amonst other things) "Rape is a gender specific crime ... it can only be committed by males upon females". I haven't found an English or US definition yet but in Sctoland, at least, that would mean that niether sodomistic rape or the creative use of Viagra by a woman on a man would be considered rape.

I'm quite bothered by that. Why should I not be offered the same protection as a woman simply because it's trickier (but still possible) for her to have sex with me without my consent?

edit>> just found on the wikkipedia that in England and Wales, although a woman cannot commit rape she can be prosecuted for "causing a man to engage in sexual activity without his consent". This can carry a life sentence if penetration was involved so I guess it's treated as rape in everything but name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

In fact, you would think it would be an act of Treason for a State to knowlingly pass a law that flies in the face of Federal law.

---

Just a quick question. When the Supreme Court of the US stated that slavery was legal and that African Americans were less than a whole human being was the Emancipation and freeing of the slaves treasonous in your book?

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

Just a quick question. When the Supreme Court of the US stated that slavery was legal and that African Americans were less than a whole human being was the Emancipation and freeing of the slaves treasonous in your book?

X

---

Well there were free states too back then. So if a State changed it position, then no it wouldn't be treasonus cause the Constitution didn't prohibit free states.

You can be treasonus and be a moral person. Those are two seperate things. Treason is a legal issue.

Hmmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

the law dictates that a man cannot be raped by a woman.

---

Quote:

---

33-year-old California teacher Rebecca Boicelli (search) was arrested last month on statutory rape and related charges after DNA tests confirmed that a former student fathered her 2-year-old baby when he was 16.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

Well there were free states too back then. So if a State changed it position, then no it wouldn't be treasonus cause the Constitution didn't prohibit free states.

You can be treasonus and be a moral person. Those are two seperate things. Treason is a legal issue.

---

There was never anything about slavery or free states vs. slave states in the Constitution as far as I remember. The Supreme Court of the land made it possible for slavery to be legal due to the classification of slaves as property and slaves being regarded as less than a whole human being (without such rulings slaves would have been afforded the same protections under the US Constitution as everyone else).

My whole point was that it is not treasonous to oppose such decisions made by the Supreme Court because in fact they can be wrong, just like slavery.

X

NotLKH that's statuatory rape, a WHOLE different kettle of fish because he would have consented, but he was below the legal age to consent so eventhough it's not forced, it's illegal.

England and Wales have the same laws, a man cannot be raped by a woman. Simple as that. I think it was based on the physical as well as other variables. For example, generally a woman will rarely have the physical power to overcome a man enough to rape him. I'm not trying to condone the law because I am not. I believe the law should just be "the sexually motivated physical assault of another person", but unfortunately in the eyes of the law the man will always have the disadvantage. A good example is domestic abuse, although the vast majority is a man beating a woman, there are cases of women assaulting their partners...but they rarely get convicted because of the law being female-biased. How pitiful our judicial system has become :(

The UK law regarding rape is fairly clear here

So a woman cannot rape a man, but she can be convicted of sexual assault by indecently touching him and such

In my State, it can be a man or woman... but what I found also was that having sex with a drunk person could potentially have you charged with a Class C felony - I knew of a couple college roommates who could have been charged with that.. and some women too!

940.225 Sexual assault. (1) FIRST DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT.
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class B felony:
(a) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person
without consent of that person and causes pregnancy or great
bodily harm to that person.
(b) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person
without consent of that person by use or threat of use of a dangerous
weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead
the victim reasonably to believe it to be a dangerous weapon.
(c) Is aided or abetted by one or more other persons and has
sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person without
consent of that person by use or threat of force or violence.
(2) SECOND DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT. Whoever does any of
the following is guilty of a Class C felony:
(a) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person
without consent of that person by use or threat of force or violence.
(b) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person
without consent of that person and causes injury, illness, disease
or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ, or mental
anguish requiring psychiatric care for the victim.
(c) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who
suffers from a mental illness or deficiency which renders that person
temporarily or permanently incapable of appraising the person’s
conduct, and the defendant knows of such condition.
(cm) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person
who is under the influence of an intoxicant to a degree which renders
that person incapable of appraising the person’s conduct, and
the defendant knows of such condition.
(d) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who
the defendant knows is unconscious.
(f) Is aided or abetted by one or more other persons and has
sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person without
the consent of that person.

agghhh, Coyote Ugly :eek:

Gotta watch out for those Two Baggers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

So, If I am raped by a woman, and she becomes pregnant. Should It be legal for me to force her to get an abortion because that child is a constant reminder to me of the crime?

---

Interesting question. If you get a woman pregnant in pretty much any state in this country, you are liable for child support. In the case you state, would you still be liable for child support? If not, what legal justification would you use if she took you to court?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Interesting question. If you get a woman pregnant in pretty much any state in this country, you are liable for child support. In the case you state, would you still be liable for child support? If not, what legal justification would you use if she took you to court?

---

I would use the same argument women use "that child is a constant reminder to me of the crime"

I would most likley be liable for child support. I'll tell you a little story about a college roomate of mine. A girl claimed he was the father of her child. He had no knowledge she even had the child as he only met her once in his life and hadn't spoken to her for over a year. When the baby was born, she put his name on the birth certificate. The next day she filed a child support claim with the state. She didn't have his current address so the summons to court never reached him. He didn't show up for court, so the Judge by default granted her the state maximum in child support. 6 month later he noticed that a large percentage of his wages were being garnished. That was the first he ever heard of this kid. Unfortunatly he didn't have the cash for an attorney and had to pay this non-refundable money for 2 years for a child that didn't turn out to be his. BTW His credit rating was destroyed beyond repair due to the fact he owed 6 months back child support and went default on 3 loans due to the decrease in his cash flow. There is a serious problem with the system and it favors the female.

That's what I was thinking, too. The system is pretty well skewed in one direction. While I believe it is the duty of a guy to support a child he fathered regardless if he was an active participant, it seems like there are a variety of possible ways a guy could father a child when he had neither intention nor even direct participation in the act.

Dont believe in a god, also right and wrong have no meaning its just someone's opinion or point of view so if you were to argue it would never end. The winner is always the person who has more people doesnt mean what they speak is true though

Granted, there is no universal truth such as what is absolutely right and absolutely wrong.

But to say its just a matter of personal opinion is simplistic at best.

You, alone, aren't the determinier of what you think is good, bad, right, wrong.
You first off have the teachings of your parents. Who in turn were taught by there parents, ad infinitum.
Next, your friends and neighbors certainly influence whaty you've come to determine what is right and wrong.
Society, those invisible people all around that determine laws, run the media, plan public schools curriculum, all influenced what you've come to think of as right and wrong.
And finally, society itself has been shaped by the predominant religions that its constituents follow. Religion has inluenced your beliefs, even if you don't believe in religion.

So, ultimately, since all around you predominately have been influenced by the same forces that you yourself have been influenced by, you will find that by and large, your sense of what is right and wrong is not just a "personal opinion". It represents the majority belief, +/- 5 %.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deathend

Dont believe in a god, also right and wrong have no meaning its just someone's opinion or point of view so if you were to argue it would never end. The winner is always the person who has more people doesnt mean what they speak is true though

---

Let us all shed our punctuation and run freely through the forums sowing confusion with every mangled phrase

I actually understood this eventually

C++ programmer, obviously. Mangling is common in those circles ;)

Can't be, no semicolons.

Trying to disguise true origins?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Couldn't have put it better myself. Abortion shouldn't be viewed as a 'quick fix' but to simply say 'never allow it' ignores the realities of life.


1. You couldn't assume that the fetus's soul goes to heaven, Christianity contains the concept of original sin.

2. To a christian, it is Gods decision as to when you die, not a mothers. The mother therefore cannot claim this as a virtuous act.

3. Murder is murder and would be a far greater sin than sending your child to heaven is a virtue.

4. Good can come from evil acts but that doesn't mean the act isn't evil.

BTW, I'm not a Christian but the point above seem obvious to me.

---

#1)
Is original sin in the bible?

Original Sin is a horrible concept.

From your particular Chrisitan perspective (the belief in original sin):

a) God is all powerful
b) God is all good
c) Any person that doesn't accept Christ goes to hell
d) Fetus' are people.
e) A fetus cannot accept Christ, therefore it gets sent to hell for all eternity if it gets aborted by its mother (who also gets sent to hell).

Something is wrong here.

To me, logically, being immoral requires an immoral act.

A fetus cannot commit an immoral act, but Original Sin says they are immoral because they haven't been baptized, or accepted Christ.

The idea of original sin is so idiotic... it makes no sense to me.

The only reason I see for this idea is to scare the parents to make sure their kids are recruited to the religion.

Quote:

---

being immoral requires an immoral act

---

but there's the catch, if you DO believe in original sin then we are born sinful and have to be actively moral during our lives to absolve ourselves of that sin. On that basis a baby that never got the chance to do anything actively moral would indeed go to hell (or purgatory or whatever else you happen to believe).

By the way, original sin isn't to do with being baptised or otherwise, rather it's a belief that we're all born bad and have to go forth and do something about it if we're to go to heaven.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that original sin seems a fairly abhorent concept. But then I'm not a christian and I don't believe in original sin (neither do many christians). My point was that you were trying to point a contradiction in their belief system, but to do that the contradiction must exist within the belief system itself, not just something that contradicts something that we as non-christians believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

This is a question for the religious people who are against abortion.

What happens to aborted fetus's? Do their souls automatically go to heaven?

If yes ...

Wouldn't it be the ultimate act of sacrifice for a mother to abort her child?

Think about it.

She is committing a grave sin so her child will go directly to heaven.
Because if she gives birth to her child, there is a good chance that her child might not accept the chosen religion, therefore be sent to burn in Hell for all eternity.

Chew on that contradiction for a while.

---

That's a very interesting perspective. Consider this:

1. If a foreknowledge of a person's destructive actions are known before they are ever committed, should that person be judged and sentenced before hand?

A: No. Every person has a free will of choice. This right has been granted to every person by God.

2. Since God is the omnipotent being who resideses outside our space and time, why doesn't the one creator destory this creation since he knew his creation would be defient towards him from the start?

A: We we're created to know, love, and serve God. God loves his creation, and out of love comes forgiveness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freshblueO2

That's a very interesting perspective. Consider this:

1. If a foreknowledge of a person's destructive actions are known before they are ever committed, should that person be judged and sentenced before hand?

A: No. Every person has a free will of choice. This right has been granted to every person by God.

2. Since God is the omnipotent being who resideses outside our space and time, why doesn't the one creator destory this creation since he knew his creation would be defient towards him from the start?

A: We we're created to know, love, and serve God. God loves his creation, and out of love comes forgiveness.

---

My problem:
In your religion, God created the world knowing people will defy or ignore him or not accept Christ. Therefore they are sent to hell. Which from what I gather means you are to burn for all eternity.

From this perspective, I'd rather have no creation at all, than to have even one person (regardless of what they do) be tortured for eternity.

Another problem . . .

If you create something - let's say a child; do you want this creation to have freewill or be totally deterministic? If it's the latter then I concur that your argument is cogent and rational. If it's the first one then I'm afraid you'll need to concede that you do, in fact, completely understand the relationship between God, man, and creation, and the (basic) implications surrounding it.

The argument against even making this choice is that in reality mankind is somewhere between the extremes of free-will and determinism. But as the Christian faith (and others) don't subscribe to these shade of grey it's irrelevant in this context.

And further...

The further an individual is allowed to further himself, the individual can only go less further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Another problem . . .

If you create something - let's say a child; do you want this creation to have freewill or be totally deterministic? If it's the latter then I concur that your argument is cogent and rational. If it's the first one then I'm afraid you'll need to concede that you do, in fact, completely understand the relationship between God, man, and creation, and the (basic) implications surrounding it.

The argument against even making this choice is that in reality mankind is somewhere between the extremes of free-will and determinism. But as the Christian faith (and others) don't subscribe to these shade of grey it's irrelevant in this context.

---

Determinism and free will is a philosophical debate.

It has nothing to do with whether the existence of eternal damnation is ethical.

That is where my question about abortion centers. The Christian concept of eternal torture is so extreme, that wouldn't it be a noble act for a Christian mother to committ abortion (a mortal sin) to prevent her child from a very real possibility of rejecting their religion and thus being condemned to being totured for all eternity?

'Pigeon-holing' religious and philosophical issues is a neat trick - and helps you to avoid answering a valid point. Religious people use it; non-religious people use it. I don't care who uses it; it is not a rational act to dismiss either religion of philosphy or the philosophy of religion out of hand.

Fortunately, I've seen it before, as others here have, and realise that without any rational justification, you may as well be vomiting random words.

And if you knew anything about what your are saying then you will realise that 'in the beginning' God created man 'in his own image' I don't think it was talking about looks do you? Perhaps it might be things like 'freewill'?

Freewill is at the very centre of all monotheistic religions. You get to choose whether to believe or otherwise. This is 'celebrated'

As for ethics. . . .

Describe what you think ethics and their applicability to mankind are without introducing rules (determinism) or choice (freewill) . . . .

Describe the anthropological origins of ethics.

Quote 'eternal damnation' from the original source - and include it's outer context.

BTW, capsule . . .

The term 'Hell' is more properly defined as 'the absence of God' The closest (simple) analogy I can think of is a society without the rule of law but I'm sure our Christian friends here would claim that analogy doesn't quite do the term justice . . . .

I don't recall any phrases in the Christian bible describing eternal torture; in fact I can only recall one religious body that encourages this - Catholicism.

If you can dig out the 'burn in hell' etc etc quotes I'd be most grateful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

This has to be the stupides question I saw in my entire life. Congratulations.

---

This has been the stupidest reply I have even seen. Congratulations.

----
"My" Thoughts Pertaining to the main question.

If child isn't tought about God or never really learns about Him then he will not go to hell when he dies. The only way you go to hell is if you reject God. In other words, you only go to hell by sin. This child has to make a "choice" later in life to commit a sin. When he is born he is innocent and will go straight to heaven if he dies. The mother is actually depriving the child of the right to live a good life, if the child "chooses" to live one, in this world and enjoy many of this worlds pleasures. Also there is no gift, sacrifice, act of mercy, or anything that would make the "killing" of a child right. Its murder! And if you don't believe in God, murder is against the law! You ("you" meaning anyone how supports abortion) say its a womens choice, well she made the choice to have the baby in the first place by not being responible! And now she has taken away her freedom of choice! We must remember to have choice we must have responsibility. But I'am getting off-topic, and I don't want to get into an arguement. This is just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freshblueO2

That's a very interesting perspective. Consider this:

1. If a foreknowledge of a person's destructive actions are known before they are ever committed, should that person be judged and sentenced before hand?

A: No. Every person has a free will of choice. This right has been granted to every person by God.

2. Since God is the omnipotent being who resideses outside our space and time, why doesn't the one creator destory this creation since he knew his creation would be defient towards him from the start?

A: We we're created to know, love, and serve God. God loves his creation, and out of love comes forgiveness.

---

Oh here we go :rolleyes:

So according to the analogy of your second question if I create an application and it is truly terrible and doesn't do what I want it to do I must live with it and leave it be? Certainly not, I will either fix it or scrap it and start again.

And how are you supposed to serve God when he leaves no instructions except via a novel with no accredited author, date of publishing or even an original edition!?!

Valleys . . .

Given the scope of the original question, I think that it is enough - solely to answer the question - to presume that God does exist.

If God doesn't exist it does not preclude the question 'If God exists . . . ' etc etc

Bit of a fuzzy head this morning (spending my Budget gains;) Hope this makes sense.